Skip to main content

Full text of "Fishes, Living and Fossil"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


Editorial Committee : S. Newcomb, Mathematics ; B. S. Woodward, Mechanics ; E. C. Pickering, 

Astronomy; T. C. Mendenhall, Physics; E. H. Thurston, Engineering; Ira Eemsen, Chemistry; 

J. Le Conte, Geology; W. M. Davis, Physiography; O. C. Marsh, Paleontology; W. K. 

Brooks, C. Hart Merriam, Zoology; S. H. Soudder, Entomology; N. L. Britton, 

Botany; Henry F. Osborn, General Biology; H. P. Bowditch, Physiology; 

" J. S. Billings, Hygiene ; J. McKeen Cattell, Psychology.; 

Daniel G. Brinton, J. W. Powell, Anthropology ; 

G. Brown Goode, Scientific Organization. 

Friday, June 26, 1896. 


Fishes, Living and Fossil : Theo. Gill 909 

Food of the European Booh ( Corvus frugilegus) : 
F. E. L. Bbal 918 

An Investigation with Bontgen Bays on Germinating 
Plants: H. J. Webber 919 

Current Notes on Physiography : — 
Great Valley of California; Norwegian Coast Plain ; 
Equatorial Counter Currents ; Planetary and Ter- 
restrial Currents: W. M. Davis 920 

Current Notes on Meteorology : — 
The Climatology of Maryland; Meteorological Ob- 
servations in Schools; Other Noteworthy Publica- 
tions: E. DeC. Ward 922 

Scientific Notes and News: — 
Astronomy: H. J. Honey Ants: L. O. H. 
Contributions from the Missouri Botanical Garden; 
General 922 

University and Educational News 927 

Discussion and Correspondence : — 
The Application of Sex Terms to Plants : Charles 
E. Barnes 928 

Scientific Literature: — 

Lim's Antropometria ,3iilitare ; Franz BOAS. 
Crocker's Electric Lighting: A. S. Kimball. 
Nehrling's Native Birds of Song and Beauty; 
Hahn's Die Haustiere : C. H. M. The Gypsy 
Moth: L. O. Howard 929 

Societies and Academies : — 

Biological Society of Washington : . F. A. LUCAS. 
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: 
Edw. J. Nolan. The New York Section of the 
American Chemical Society: DURAND WOOD- 
MAN. The Torrey Botanical Club : W. A. Bas- 
tedo. Kansas University Science Club 934 

New Books 936 

MSS. intended for publication and books, etc., intended 
for review should be sent to the responsible editor, Prof. J. 
McKeen Cattell, Garrison-on-Hudson, N. Y. 

A text-book of Ichthyology embodying 
the results of recent investigation and tak- 
ing cognizance of both living and extinct 
forms has long been a desideratum. Dr. 
Giinther's ' Introduction to the Study of 
Fishes ' (1880) did not at all represent the 
condition of ichthyology even at the time 
of its original publication, and the German 
translation (1886) was scarcely more than a 
reproduction, in another language, of the 
original work and retained almost all its 
numerous defects and errors. Those de- 
fects and errors were especially manifest 
in the treatment of the extinct forms. The 
increase in our knowledge of past types, 
too, has been very great within the last 
decade, owing to the labors of Mr. Smith 
Woodward, Prof. Cope and others. The 
desideratum indicated, to a certain limited 
extent, has been supplied so far as the ' fos- 
sil ' fishes are concerned, in a recent work, 
by Dr. Dean, of New York, entitled ' Fishes, 
Living and Fossil.'* But it is not, as the 
author confesses, an elaborate introduction 
to ichthyology ; its ' object is to enable the 
reader to obtain a convenient review of the 
most important forms of fishes and of their 
structural and developmental characters ' 

* Fishes, Living and Fossil. An outline of their 
forms and probable relationships. By Bashford Dean, 
Ph. D., Instructor in Biology, Columbia College, 
New York City. —New York: Macmillan & Co. 1895. 
(Columbia University Biological Series III. — 8vo, 
xiv, 300 pp.) 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 78. 

(p. ix). A brief summary of the chapters 
will enable the student to judge of the ex- 
tent and scope of the work. 

In the first chapter, after the ' introduc- 
tory, the form and movement of fishes, 
their classification, geological distribution, 
mode of evolution, [and] the survival of 
generalized forms ' are considered (pp. 

In the second chapter, ' the evolution of 
structures characteristic of fishes, e. g. (1) 
gills, (2) skin defences, (3) fins, and (4) 
sense organs ' are discussed (pp. 14-56). 

In the third chapter, ' the Lampreys and 
their allies,' including ' the Ostracoderms 
and Palseospondylus,' are described (pp. 

In the fourth chapter (pp. 72-98), 'the 
Sharks,' in the fifth (pp. 99-115) ' the Chi- 
mEeroids,' in the sixth (pp. 116-138) 'the 
Lung-fishes' or Dipnoans, and in the sev- 
enth (pp. 139-178) 'the Teleostomes (i. e., 
Ganoids and Teleosts)' are briefly noticed. 

In the eighth chapter (pp. J 79-226) we 
are presented with sketches of ' the groups of 
fishes contrasted from the standpoint of em- 
bryology, their eggs and breeding habits, 
outlines of the development of Lamprey, 
Shark, Lung- fish, Ganoid and Teleost, [and] 
their larval development.' 

Next are furnished unnumbered sections, 
giving ' derivation of names ' (p. 227-230), 
'bibliography' (p. 231-251), and 'explana- 
tory tables ' (V.-XIX.) continued (p. 252- 
283) from others given elsewhere (p. 8, 9, 
98, 166) in the volume, which is capped 
with a full index (p. 285-300). 

Fish is a word of diversiform meanings ; 
it is the expression of a concrete notion and 
it is the symbol of an abstract concept ;. in 
the former sense it brings before the mind 
a vertebrate inhabitant of the water with a 
subfusiform body, and in the latter sense 
any inhabitant of the water as contrasted 
with one of the air or of the land ; when it 
is used in such compounds as fish-form, 

fish-like, fish-shaped, fish-backed and fish- 
bellied, it is the typical fusiform fish that is 
meant ; when shell-fish, star-fish and jelly- 
fish are named it is the abstract concept of 
inhabitants of the water that is imagined. 
In the latter sense it is a reminiscence of 
the time when men believed in the 'ele- 
ments ' of earth, water and air, and appor- 
tioned to each their inhabitants. Those 
inhabitants were designated by Plato as 

gr/porpoyud, uypoTfKxpud, and GypovofitxA. In 

the cosmological dreams of elders of our 
' Aryan ' stock as well as the Semitic they 
were created specially for the elements in 
question; so imagined the Hebrew histo- 
rians, and to like purpose did Ovid sing. 

Dr. Dean well remarks that " it would be 
unreasonable to doubt that the fish form is 
adapted to the mechanical needs of its en- 
vironment" (p. 6). Such adaptation is 
evident. Nature has evolved and devel- 
oped the form ; man has copied. The ' fish 
form,' in its perfection, is realized in the tun- 
nies and other wanderers of the high seas. 
The forms whose movements are delineated 
(p. 2) after Marey are not of this class, but 
a stage or more removed from it. The 
typical fish can only describe simple curves; 
the shark with its sigmoid curve and the eel 
with its multiplex curve introduce other 
conditions. On the other hand, it is the 
typical and sub-typical fish forms that have 
been the subjects of Mr. Parson's memoir 
on ' the displacement and the area curves 
of fish '* and have furnished the four out- 
lines copied by Dr. Dean (p. 5). 

The typical fish form, as exemplified in 
the tunnies, is especially adapted for rapid- 
ity of locomotion, and all the fishes in which 
it is developed are preeminently coursers 
of the sea. But it is not alone by coursing 
that fishes obtain their daily food. To ob- 
tain that food, to secure safety and conceal- 
ment, Nature has provided many devices 

* Trans. Am. Soc. Meoh. Engineers Vol. IX., pp. 
679-695, with 7 pi. incl. 21 contours. 

June 26, 1896.] 



and innumerable deviations from the typi- 
cal fish form are developed. 

But, as Dr. Dean well observes, the fish 
form ' is a factor in the evolution of fishes 
which appears in [almost] every [large] 
group and subgroup. And it has ever 
stood in the way of classifying them satis- 
factorily according to their kinships ' (p. 7) . 
Still more aggressive as obstacles have been 
certain deviations from that form and especi- 
ally the eel-like form. The anguilliform 
modification, resulting from elongation of 
the body and concomitant adjustments, 
such as union of the vertical fins, loss of 
the ventrals, and restriction of the bran- 
chial apertures, is apt to recur in various 
groups, and does occur in the plectospondy- 
lous ' eels ' (' electrical eel, ' etc.) and the 
symbranchoid to such a degree that it has 
been difficult even for ichthyologists to con- 
vince themselves that the likeness was de- 
ceptive as indication of affinity. 

The progress of ichthyology has been in a 
ratio inverse to the influence on the mind 
of this ancient concept of the importance of 
adaptation of the organization for aquatic 
life. Many are still influenced by it. As 
a consequence all the branchiferous verte- 
brates are confounded in one class — the 
Fishes or Pisces. By most morphologists, 
however, that physiological group is sub- 
divided into three or more classes. Three 
are admitted by Dr. Dean — the Leptocar- 
dians, the Marsipobranchs, and the true 
Fishes or Pisces. The last two are arran- 
ged in the following table (p. 8): 


Type : CHORDATA (Vertebrates). 
Class : Marsipobranchii, Lampreys, Palasospon- 

dylun, Hag, Lamprey, Odracoderms. 
Class : Pisces (true fishes). 
I. Sub-class : Elasmobranchii, Sharks and 
Order: Pleuropterpgii (Dean), Cladoselaehids 
" Ichthyotomi (Cope), Pleuracanthids. 
" Selaohii, Sharks and Eays. 

II. Sub-class : Holocephali, Chimseroids, 

Order : Chimeeroidei, Squaloraiids, Myriaean- 
thids, Chimserids. 

III. Sub-class : Dipnoi, Lung-fishes. 

Order : Sirenoidei, Dipterids, Phaneropleurids, 
Ctenodonts, Lepidosirenids. 
" ? Arthrodira, Coccosteids, Mylostomids. 

IV. Sub-class : Teleostomi, Ganoids and Bony 

Fishes (Teleosts). 
Order : Crossopterygii, Holoptychiids, Osteole- 
pids, Onychodonts, Ccelacanthids. 
" Actinopterygii. 

Sub-order : Chondrostei (Ganoids), Palseonis- 
coids, Sturgeons, Garpikes, Ami- 
" Teleocephali, recent Bony Fishes 

In this table Dr. Dean claims to have 
' retained in the main the classification of 
Smith Woodward,' but he has adopted the 
most prominent features from Prof. Cope. 
It expresses, too, the ideas of most mor- 
phologists, but it is questionable whether 
Dr. Dean has gone far enough in the valua- 
tion of some groups. The reviewer would be 
inclined to admit four classes exclusive of 
the Leptocardians. 

The ' Marsipobranchii ' might be split into 
two classes — the Marsipobranchii (properly 
classed) and the Ostracophori or 'Ostra- 
coderms ' as Dr. Dean calls them. The 
latter are very imperfectly unknown, and 
only by Prof. Cope had they been previously 
associated in the same class as the Marsipo- 
branchs. By Woodward they were ranked 
as a special subclass of true fishes. The 
evidence for any avocation is defective but 
for the present the group may be given 
class rank and retain the name Ostracophori . 
It was originally named Ostracodermi, but 
that name having been preoccupied (in 
1872) by G-ill for the Ostraciids, the new 
name was later given by Cope. But 
although first distinguished as a subclass 
under the name Ostracodermi, the dif- 
ferences between the representatives of that 
subclass and the Arthrodira had been to a 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 78. 

considerable degree appreciated twenty 
years ago. The reviewer, in the article 
' Ichthyology ' in Johnson's Universal Gj- 
clopsedia (II., 1876) then gave the following 
arrangement of the extinct types : 

' Super-order Dipnoi. 
' Order Sirenoidei. 
' (?) Order Placoganoidei* (extinct). 

' Super-order (?) Aspidoganoidei (ex- 
tinct) . 

'Order Cephalaspidoidea (extinct).' 

The ' Elasmobranchs ' of Dean and Chi- 
mseroids have been segregated in another 
class named Selachians or Elasmobranchs, 
and the two main groups have been regar- 
ded as sub-classes— Plagiostomes and Ho- 

The Dipnoans and the Teleostomes are 
scarcely separable as classes, although often 
kept apart as such. The Dipnoans and 
Crossopterygians lose some of their salient 
characters, as we follow them back in time, 
and have evidently diverged from a com- 
mon stock. For the united group the class 
name Pisces, or Teleostomi, can be used. 

Such are the opinions of the reviewer, but 
perhaps Dr. Dean acted wisely in accepting 
the classification adopted. The succeeding 
pages teem with statements challenging at- 
tention and often perhaps dissent. In al- 
most all cases, however, weighty evidence 
could be urged in favor of the views 
adopted. There are few cases where we 
feel disposed to bring forward objections, 
but a comparison of ideas on some mooted 
questions may be of interest and use. 

The ' explanatory tables ' towards the 
end of the volume give facts respect- 
ing the ' skeletons of fishes ' (pp. 252, 
253), 'relations of the jaws and branchial 
arches of fishes' (pp. 256, 257), ' the heart 
of fishes' (260), ' a comparison of gills, 
spiracle, gill-rakers and opercula' (260, 
261), 'digestive tract' (263), 'swim-blad- 

* Placoganoidei was an ordinal name for the Placo- 
dernii with diptioan dentition. 

der' (264), 'genital system ' (266), 'cir- 
culation of fishes ' (269), ' excretory sys- 
tem and urinogenital ducts' (270, 271), 
' abdominal pores' (271), ' the central ner- 
vous system of fishes ' (274, 275), ' the 
sense organs ' (276, 277), etc. 

These tables give a large amount of use- 
ful and tolerably well digested information 
illustrated by apt figures and arranged 
under the main groups of fish-like verte- 
brates, as Cyclostomes, Sharks, Chimser- 
oids, Lung-fishes, Ganoids and Teleosts. 
But useful as the tables are, the ordinary 
reader will be liable to fall often into error 
if he allows himself to trust them too im- 
plicitly. The exceptions to the general 
propositions are very numerous. Examples 
of such are ' tail heterocercal ' (p. 252) in 
Selachians, or ' Sharks ' and Pays, ' oper- 
culum, pre-, sub- and inter-opercula,' in Tel- 
eosts, etc. (261), 'many pyloric cseca' in 
Teleosts (263), and air bladder in Teleosts 
as in Sturgeon (264) but ' may be absent 
(Pleuronectids).' Hosts of the fishes re- 
specting which the characters in question 
are predicated differ from the majority in 
wanting them. The remarkably aberrant 
Lyomeres, indeed, want all. 

The anatomical portion is generally satis- 
factory, so far as it goes, and, although we 
may sometimes differ from the author as to 
homologies, he seldom falls into absolute 
error, as he does, for example, in calling 
the ventral fins of Ophidium ' barbels ' (p. 
47). He may be congratulated on having 
divested himself of ' his former view that 
the pineal foramen of Dinichthys contained 
a specialized optic capsule ' (55) and of a 
corresponding view respecting the ' pineal 
foramen ' of Siluroids. Apropos of the Silu- 
roids, we feel disposed to dissent from Dr. 
Dean's statement respecting ' the most com- 
plete encasement of a fish's body dermal 
plates ' as manifest in callichthyids. He 
thinks that the two lateral rows of plates 
are the result of ' extended fusions, a single 

June 26, 1896.] 



dermal plate enclosing the upper or lower 
division of the muscle plate of either side ' 
(p. 26). It is not evident what reason he 
has for such a belief, and why the extension 
of single plates is not more probable ; equally 
improbable is the explanation of the size of 
the ' dermal plates of the Seahorse ' result- 
ing from ' fusions ' (p. 26). As a rule, en- 
larged scales result from individual exten- 
sion, and not general aggregation. The 
mode is suggested by the varieties of carp 
alluded to by Dr. Dean (p. 26). 

A short chapter on ' the development of 
fishes ' is given, and, on the whole, the sub- 
ject is well brought up to date. Dr. Dean 
thinks that the data of embryology are 
'very inconclusive' with reference to the 
successively increasing complication of 
structure, if at present in any way suggest- 
ive (p. 180). This is certainly the case if 
reference is had only to external features. 
'Adaptive characters have entered so 
largely into the plan of the development of 
fishes that they obscure many of the features 
which might otherwise be made of value for 
comparison ' (p. 180). Such being the case, 
we have no right to expect very much from 
superficial characters. It is the study of 
the anatomy, and especially of the develop- 
ing bones, that will ultimately give useful 
hints. Indeed, only from a survey of the 
detailed comparative anatomy of the suc- 
cessive stages of the developing fishes have 
we a right to look for light on some ques- 
tions of relationship and phylogeny. For 
instance, we should not expect much more 
guidance from mere externals of the various 
stages of ' Ceratodus ' than the illustrations 
actually give. Here it may be added that 
we are indebted to Dr. Dean for giving the 
results of such very recent work as that of 

The nomenclature of Dr. Dean's work is 
mostly in accord with current American 
usage, so far as the American species at 
least are concerned, but sometimes that cur- 

rent in Europe is adapted, as Bdellostoma 
(61) instead of Heptatrema, Cedraeion (85), 
for Heterodontus, Lwmargus (91) for Som- 
niosus, Rhina (91) for Squatina, 'Butrinus' 
(258, 260, Butirinus) for Albula, etc. Some- 
times there is a discrepancy resulting, per- 
haps, from the fact that the author may not 
have been fully aware that his names re- 
ferred to the same form as Squalus (89) and 
Acanthias (216). 

The numerous (344) figures are generally 
well selected and illustrate morphological 
and other data. Some, however, as most 
derived from Agassiz's and Pander's works 
and that of Pleuracanthm (90), might have 
been supplanted by later and better ones. 
A few, also, have been misplaced or mis- 
named, as 29, which really represents 
Aetobatus and not Trygon; 172 depicting 
Bathyonus compressus; 173 representing Nota- 
canthus sexspinis; 174 representing Parali- 
paris bathybius, and 182 illustrating Micro- 
gadus tomeodus and not Gadus morrhua. 

The most serious omission in the ' Fishes, 
living and fossil,' is of most of the living 
forms. Somewhere near 10,000 of those 
are Teleosts, and only about 350 living 
species belong to the other divisions. Nev- 
ertheless the systematic consideration of 
the Teleosts is condensed within 13 pages 
(165-178), and no idea is given of the range 
of variation and the diversity of that large 
group. The Cyprinoideans, the Characinoi- 
deans, the Cichloideans and the Percoi- 
deans, which constitute so large an element 
of fresh-water fishes, are not even mentioned 
as such. In the tables of ' classification ' 
and ' distribution * * * in geological time ' 
(pp. 8, 9) only six groups (Teleocephali, 
Clupeoids, Salmonids, Perches and Berycids, 
Siluroids, and ' Gadoids and other Teleosts') 
are named. Surely the student would rea- 
sonably expect to find more in a work en- 
titled as it is. 

Mention having been made of the ' Teleo- 
cephali,' it may be added that the group 



|N. S. Vol. III. No. 78. 

so called is by no means identical with the 
Teleosts, as stated (pp. 8, 165). The 
Teleocephali are an order of the sub-class 
of Teleosts restricted to such as have typic- 
ally complete intermaxillary and maxillary 
bones and cranial in number exemplified 
or closely approximated by the Perch ; it 
thus contrasts with the Nematognathi, the 
Apodes, and others. 

The ISTematognaths are considered by Dr. 
Dean, as by most old authors, to be ' closely 
akin to the Sturgeon' (p. 147), and, indeed, 
it is claimed that the Catfish ' is, perhaps, a 
direct descendant of some early type of 
Mesozoic Palseoniscoid' (p. 171). The 
same idea is also expressed in the exhibit 
of ' the phylogeny of the Teleostomes ' (p. 
166), where the ' Siluroid ' branch is inter- 
posed between the ' Sturgeon ' and ' Amia ' 
and well separated from the ' Physostome.' 
It is likewise declared that ' their armour- 
ing is metameral and archaic, their sensory 
canals primitive in structure and arrange- 
ment' (p. 172). All this may be quite in 
accord with what has been believed by the 
most learned ichthyologists of old, but can 
be now known to be baseless. The Silu- 
roids have no direct relations with the 
Sturgeons, the Coccosteids, or any of the 
extinct ganoid fishes, and are undoubtedly 
derivatives from the same stock as the 
Characinids and the Cyprinids. The arma- 
ture, instead of being archaic, is of secon- 
dary development. The fishes themselves 
are more specialized and therefore more 
distant from the Ganoids than the Characi- 
nids and various other forms. The entire 
structure, including brain, vascular system, 
skeleton, weberian ossicles, air bladder, 
and morphological development generally, 
proves this and in turn is illustrated by this 
conception of their relationship. The sim- 
ilarity in appearance of Loricariids and 
Acipenserids, great as it is, is entirely super- 
ficial and illusive and should no longer be 
allowed to mislead. While referring to 

the Siluroids, it may be added that there is 
more than a 'single European species, Silurus 
glanis ' (p. 171). There is another concern- 
ing which many data were published over 
2200 years ago — the true Glanis of the 
Greeks and of Aristotle especially, the 
Silurus, or Parasilurus Aristotelis. Although 
this Greek fish has generally been supposed 
to be identical with ' the gigantic Wels of 
of the Danube,' it was, as declared by 
Agassiz 40, years ago, and demonstrated 
lately by Mr. Garman, a very different 

Dr. Dean's misconceptions respecting the 
Siluroids are those of others. He declines to 
go to the extremes of some others, and very 
properly notes (p. 64) disbelief in the ' cir- 
rhostomial origin [ascribed] to the mouth 
parts of a Teleostome (catfish).' 

Some of the statements as to distribution 
and extent of groups may mislead. Of the 
Mormyrids, or genus Mormyrus as Dr. 
Dean calls the group, it is said, 'its species 
are restricted to the Nile ' (p. 172), whereas 
species occur in all the rivers of tropical 
Africa. Of the Anaeanthini, it is claimed 
'that as many, perhaps, as one-quarter of the 
existing genera of fishes may be assigned to 
this type ' (p. 174) : in fact, the Anaeanthini 
are comparatively few in number, especi- 
ally if properly restricted. It is also said 
that ' of existing fishes about one-half are 
essentially percoid ' (p. 174) and this also 
is a very much exaggerated statement. 

The care which Dr. Dean has taken to 
bring his work up to date has already been 
adverted to in connection with Semon's re- 
searches on the embryology of Neoeeratodus. 
Another example is found in the incorpo- 
ration of the latest news about the earliest 
' cyclostome.' References to recent memoirs 
(1890-92) on that interesting form are given 
(p. 238), and an illustration is reproduced 
(p. 65). We can scarcely agree with Dr. 
Dean, however, that it ' seems undoubtedly 
a lamprey;' apparently it represents not 

June 26, 1896.] 



only a peculiar family (Palceospondylidm) , 
but a distinct order which may be called 

Only one other feature of Dr. Dean's 
work can be noticed. The volume is grace- 
fully introduced and its scope indicated in 
the words of Aristotle — u TS>v d'ivuSpcov r<han zd 
twv tyOvwv yivoi ?v and ru>v dXXmv a<pu)pi<yrai " * 
— and it* is supplemented with a ' list of 
derivations of proper names.' There is, 
however, evidence of misconception of 
many etymologies, and corrected forms are 
here given of some of the names, leaving 
aside those that are substantially correct. 
Nevertheless it may be well to remark that 
the author need not have added ad- 
jective terminations for such words as ' fin- 
(ned),' 'tail(ed),' 'tooth(ed),' ' bone(d),' 
' spine (d),' and the like ; they were correct 
without those endings and perfectly in har- 
mony with such English words as Redfin, 
Hardtail, Fantail, Dogtooth (Dentalium) , 
Greenbone, Porcupine and Spineback and 
such ancient Greek names as daaoitou?, 
■Kspty6izTZf>o<s } 'lizTznupos, peAdvoupoSj and <riv6da>v. 
It is in this way that men naturally frame 
new names for such subjects. 

The means for ascertaining or confirming 
the etymologies of many scientific names are, 
perhaps, not available for all who might de- 
sire to ascertain them, and they are often 
wrongly analyzed. To aid such inquirers 
is the aim of the following lines. If a 
scholarly man like Dr. Dean has found so 
many obstacles to correct information, less 
accomplished men must find the way still 
more difficult. 

Acipenser is not from ' dz^-jamg, classic 
name of Sturgeon,' but is the old Latin name 
itself; both names were in use. According 
to Athenseus (VII., 44), "the accipesius, 
the same as the acipenser, or sturio, is but 
a small fish in comparison, and has a longer 

*The quotation from Aristotle occurs in the first 
paragraph of the ninth chapter of the second book 
of most editions of the Ileot $aov ioropia. 

nose, and is more triangular than the galeos 
in his shape." 

Alopias is not, of course, a transliteration 
of ' aXione^ca?, classic name of the fox shark,' 
and the name has been replaced with Alo- 
pecias by many zoologists (Miiller and Henle, 
1838,* Richardson, Giinther, and various 
text-books) . There is, however, no reason 
why the veriest purists should not accept 
Alopias. Bafinesque might have preferred 
to make the name directly from dXwnos 
(=aA(y7njc) and the terminal element tiay (in 
analogy with dXwKd^poo?, fox-colored) and 
had a perfect right to do so. 

Amia, it is too true, was misnamed after 
' dpia, classic name of tunny (?),' but, al- 
though a tunny, the dpia was not the tunny. 
There can be no doubt as to what the an- 
cients meant by dpia, and the old name was 
correctly referred nearly three centuries and 
a-half ago by Eondelet, while the correct- 
ness of the identification was confirmed by 
the most scholarly of later ichthyologists 
(Cuvier). Nevertheless, the fact appears 
to have been frequently forgotten of late 
and, therefore, reiteration with additional 
evidence will not be superfluous. The 
dpia was unquestionably the bonito of 
the books at least — the Sarda sarda of 
scientific nomenclature. Only this could 
have been the tunny-like form which had 
strong teeth which it could use successfully 
against sharks and in cutting the ropes of 
nets, f and which had a gall bladder 
stretched out upon the intestines and equal 
to them in length. X 

It was the bonito which, according to 

" Towards the end of autumn, when the 

" Has hidden its light " 

Was in season ; 

" then dress the amise 

* Miiller and Henle subsequently adopted Alopias. 
t Aristotle, IX., xxv., 5. 
t Aristotle, II., xi., 7. 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 78. 

" Whatever way you please " 

" For then you cannot spoil it if you 

It was the bonito which Epicharmus 
sang when he provided for the festive board 

" large plump amise 

"A noble pair i' the middle of the table:" 

The etymology of dpia itself was given by 
Aristotle, according to Athenseus ; the spe- 
cies was called Amia from its going in shoals 
with companions of the same kind.* 

Amiurus is from d, privative, and petoupo?, 
curtailed, and not from " dpla, Amia, obpd 

Ammoccdes is not derived from ' ap.po?, 
sand, xoIttj (a bed),' which would mean 
sand bed, but from <w w ?, sand, and xotto? 
[xohrj does not have the double meaning 
'(a bed) abider.'] What might have been 
intended, was sand abider — <w"? and 
ohrjTTjs — which should have been rendered 
ammcecetes, and ammoccetes would then have 
been a simple case of metathesis. (The 
same lapsus, but in an aggravated form, 
is seen in the case of two well-known 
genera of birds — Pediocates and Poocates.) 
But unfortunately for the hypothesis Du- 
meril sanctioned and adopted the name 
Ammoccdus and the etymology from dp.po<s and 
xoito?, ' sejour, cubile.' 

Arthrodira is composed of apffpov, joint 
and detpij, neck (not ' &'?, double'), and 
is so called on account of the joint-like con- 
nections between the head and body arma- 

Belonorhynehus is framed directly from 
fteXuvr], a point or needle (not ' classic name 
of garfish ') , and pbrx u $ snout. The ancient 
greek psX6v7] was undoubtedly the pipefish, 
but the name in recent time has been per- 
verted to the garfish. 

Calamoichthys is from x,dXapo<; (rather than 
lat. 'calamus'), reed, and fr<M?, fish; 
Calamichthys would have been preferable 

* irapa rb apa Uvat Talc TrapaTrlqaiaig. Athenseus, 
VII., 6. 

because shorter, and accord with classic 
WOrds, SUCh as x,aXap—abkijt;, etc. 

Carassius is a latinized form of Karass, or 
Karausche, the German name of the G. car- 
assius; not from 'zdpag, classic name of 

Cestracion is not from ' x,io-rpa* classic 
name of (pavement-toothed) sea fish,' but 
from Xjiarpa, a broad-headed pbleax (or 
'malleus, malleator,' according to Klein). 
Klein applied the name to the hammer- 
headed sharks, and it was first misapplied 
by Cuvier to the genus previously named 
Heterodontus by de Blainville. The fish 
named x,iarpa by the Greeks was better 
known as the Sphyrana. 

Chlamydoselachus was the original and 
proper form of the genus called Chlamydose- 
laehe. ZsXdp] is the plural form and therefore 
improper ; aiXayo? is the singular. Prob- 
ably Dr. Dean was misled by Dr. Giinther, 
who changed it to Chlamydoselache, and he 
was probably misled by Cuvier, who gave 
the name Selache to the basking shark. 

Cladoselache should have been called Cla- 

Coccosteus is from z,ux,x,o?, berry (not 
' ZjUXj^o?, rough like a berry ') and oo-rlov, 

Cyclostomata is a compound of ' xuxXos^ 
circle, (not 'circular'), and the plural of 

' aru/ia, mouth.' 

Dipnoi is not from ' dlizvoo?, double 
breathing,' but dinvoos, with two breathing 
apertures. The word occurs in Galen. 

Erythrinus is not directly from ' IpoOpoi;, 
red-colored,' but from ipuOpivo?, the old 
Greek name of the Pagellus erythrinus, and 
was misapplied to the American genus in 
sequence of a vicious habit which Linnaeus 

* Ktarpa, in the old editions of Liddell and Scott's 
'Greek-English Lexicon' {e. g., 1864, p. 755), is de- 
fined 'a fish held in esteem among the Greeks, doubt- 
ful whether a pike or a conger, Epich. p. 36, Ar. Nub. 
339;' it is properly defined in later editions (e. g., 

Juke 26, 1896.] 



and some others cultivated of using classical 
names for forms entirely unlike those for 
which the names were originally used. 

Fierasfer, according to Cuvier, was the name 
current at Marseilles of the type species ; 
therefore the 'derivation of Cuvier [was not] 
uncertain, perhaps, from proper name. ' 

Gadus is not ' the classic name of the 
cod,' which was practically unknown to 
the Greeks and Eomans. The name does 
not occur in Aristotle, but in Athenseus 
(VII., 99), the words ' the 3vo$, which some 
call yddog,' are quoted from Dorion. The 
name Onos seems to have been used in an- 
cient Greece for the Micromesistiu$ poutassou 
(Gadus poutassou of Bisso), which now is 
called, in Greece, Gaidouropsaron (donkey- 
fish), or Tsiplaki. Gadus was first used as 
a generic name for the Gadids by Artedi, 
and subsequently limited, by exclusion of 
others and by definition, to the common 
cod and its congeners. 

Ganoid is from ydvog, brightness, lustre, 
and eWo?, appearance; not ' ydvo<s, enamelled.' 

Ilyperotreta (not Hyperotretia) is the bet- 
ter name of the order in question. 

Ichthyotomi refers not ' to the distinctness 
of this group, ' but to the alleged segmenta- 
tion of the skull. 

Lcemargus was not the 'classic name of a 
shark,' but derived from Aaipapyo<s, glutton- 
ous. The name was applied by Miiller and 
Henle to the genus previously called Som- 
niosus on account of the character given by 
Scorseby to the type species. 

Lepidosiren is from tents, scale, and Siren, 
the name given by Linnaeus to an eel-shaped 
amphibian, not a ' salamander.' 

Ophidium is the Linnsean improvement of 
Ophidion of Pliny (XXXII., 35, 53) ; not 
dyfitov, a snake. 

Ostracoderm is simply the English form 
of 4<TTpax,68spiJ.o's, hard skinned, from oarpaxpv 
(not offrpdxjiov), shell, and Sippa, skin. 

Protopterus is from xpwros, first or primi- 
tive (not ' ancient '), and nrepov, fin. 

Scomberomorus is from <jxftpfipo$, mackerel, 
and o/xopog, neighbor, and not ' popwv, part.' 

Selachii is a new Latin equivalent of 
askdyri (plural of ailaio<s), cartilaginous 
fishes generally,* and not ' «^«ot, shark.' 

Teleoeephali is from riAeo?, complete, and 
z,e<paArj, head ; not ' z£Aeo$, entirely, dariov, 
bone, z,e<paXrj, head.' The cephalic bones are 
not reduced in number or proportions as in 
the Nematognaths and Apodals. 

Teleostomi from riAeos, complete, and azdpa, 
mouth ; not ' rilsoi, entirely, iartov, bone, 
<TT6p.a, mouth.' Intermaxillaries and supra- 
maxillaries are normally developed. 

Other names whose etymologies require 
more or less emendation or explanation are 
Ammoeodes, Anacanthini, Anguilla, Callichthys, 
Callorhynchus, Chimcera, Climatius, Crossop- 
terygii, Dipterus, Elonichthys, Gyroptychius, 
Harriotta, Hemitripterus, Heptanchus, Hippo- 
campus, Holoptychius, Ischyodus, Lamna, Mor- 
myrus, Myliobatis, Mylostoma, Myriacanihus, 
Myxine, Palwoniscus, Parexus, Perm,, Petro- 
myzon, Phaneropleuron, Plectognathi, Pleura- 
eanthus, Pogonias, Pristiophorus, Pristis, Pro- 
topterus, Pseudopleuronectes, Pterichthys, Raja, 
Bhabdolepis, Bhina, Ehinobatus, Scaphirhyn- 
chus, Scyllium, Silurus, Sirenoidei, Squalus, 
Squatina, Torpedo, Trachosteus and Trygon. 
Interesting questions are involved in some 
of these names, but our already over- 
crowded space forbids lingering over any 
one of them. 

The length to which this review has ex- 
tended must be evidence of the importance 
of Dr. Dean's work. The suggestions here 
offered may be of use for another edition. 
That another may be called for,we may hope. 
For the work as it is and for the care and 
thought bestowed on it our thanks are due. 

Theo. Gill. 

*The "Zekaxn are those which have been mentioned 
[/Jarof, rpvydv, pivy] • and the /3oSf, %apia, ahrog, vapiitf, 
/larpaxoc, and all the yaleudi] ' (Aristotle, V., iv, 2.) 
In other words, the Selache include all the Sharks, all 
the Eays, and the acanthopterygian L&phius.